Originally Posted by stik
So who the heck is "Dr Sherri," and what is she a doctor of? I'm working on that.
Probably Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
Originally Posted by BeanSprout Mama
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here - math is not my strongest suit - but I believe that dropping the risk from 1% with only a postpartum dose to 0.1% with a prenatal dose is a 90% decrease, since .1 is 10% of 1. I think a 90% decrease is pretty darn good, personally, and given the very serious health risks to the baby I'd jump at the chance to decrease the risk to my child by 90% if I were rh-. But that's me.
ETA: Also, I am not understanding how a baby being weakly coombs positive at birth is proof that the Rhogam shot is bad. Yes, it shows that the baby was exposed to low levels of antibodies that attacked the baby's red blood cells. However, that is the ENTIRE reason for getting the rhogam shot in the first place - to prevent the mother's body from making those antibodies which can then cause HDN in the baby.You could argue that the antibodies were caused by the rhogam but you could also just as easily argue that the antibodies were kept in check by the rhogam and that the babies were prevented from becoming more seriously ill because their mothers had the shot. Honestly, I just don't understand the logic in arguing against a shot intended to prevent the mother's body from forming antibodies against the baby's red blood cells by saying that some babies whose mothers received the shot show very weak levels of those antibodies at birth. That doesn't compute for me. If you want to explain it more in depth for me I'm happy to learn, but right now that argument just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Sorry, math really isn't my strong suit either.
The problem is the antibodies are from the Rhogam shot. Those antibodies cross the placenta and attack the red blood cells of the Rh positive fetus. They do exactly what they supposedly prevent. The baby is still attacked, it's just it's attacked by the antibodies from the Rhogam instead of it's mother. And since it requires fetal blood mixing with maternal blood twice during the pregnancy for the current baby to be affected (once to sensitize and once to produce antibodies) the odds are incredibly high (98-99%) that the current baby would never have encountered antibodies against them if the mother hadn't gotten the Rhogam shot.
The problem with the routine Rhogam shot, and something I think a lot of people don't really understand, is that it does nothing for the current baby, it's to protect future pregnancies. I really am not sure why so many people seem to be so adamant about protecting a possible future baby by getting a shot during pregnancy that even the manufacturer admits can harm the [b]present[/b] baby, especially when getting the shot after the baby is born reduces the chances of problems with future babies much more effectively and has no risk of harming the current baby.
Obviously, if you have something happen which could sensitize you (miscarriage, abortion, severe abdominal trauma, amnio), you should have the shot even during pregnancy because the current baby is then at a much greater risk from your antibodies.